Michael Day
UKOLN: The UK Office for Library and Information Networking, University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
m.day@ukoln.ac.uk
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
| Status | Current |
| Last update | 3 August 1998 |
| Created | 3 August 1998 |
| Availability | Workgroup |
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Standards, formats and initiatives
3.1 Digital Rosetta Stone
3.2 Dublin Core
3.3 National Library of Australia PANDORA Logical Data Model
3.4 Open Archival Information System (OAIS)
3.5 Pittsburgh Project: Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping
3.6 Research Libraries Group (RLG) Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata
3.7 EBU-SMPTE Task Force on Harmonised Standards for the Exchange of Television Programme Material as Bit Streams
3.8 UBC Project: The Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records
3.9 Universal Preservation Format
4. Conclusions and recommendations
5. References
6. Glossary
7. Acknowledgements
This report is a review of metadata formats and initiatives in the specific area of digital preservation. It supplements the DESIRE Review of metadata (Dempsey et al. 1997). It is based on a literature review and information picked-up at a number of workshops and meetings and is an attempt to briefly describe the state of the art in the area of metadata for digital preservation.
Discussions of metadata in the library community have largely centred on issues of resource description and discovery (Heery 1996; Heery, Powell and Day 1997; Dempsey and Heery 1998). There is, however, a growing awareness that metadata has an important role in digital resource management, including preservation. The CEDARS project recognised from an early stage that metadata issues would be important. A Working Group on Access Issues has been formed to investigate and recommend on metadata issues.
In a separate initiative in May 1997, the Research Libraries Group constituted a Working Group on the Preservation Issues of Metadata. The aim of this working group is to ensure that information essential to the continued use of digital resources is captured and preserved in an accessible form. A report has been produced which identifies 16 preservation metadata elements and provides a semantic framework for this (RLG Working Group on the Preservation Issues of Metadata 1998).
The following issues are relevant to the question of metadata:
The core technical problems of digital preservation relate to inadequate media longevity, rapid hardware obsolescence and dependencies on particular software products. In this context it makes good sense to preserve the digital data itself (the bit-streams), not the physical medium on which it happens to reside.
Seamus Ross (1997, p. 331) comments that there are three main technical preservation options:
The first of these is not very practical and potentially expensive. For these reasons, Jeff Rothenberg (1995) has suggested the building of software emulators that would mimic the behaviour of obsolete hardware and software. This would involve encapsulating data together with the application software used to create it and a description of the required hardware environment (metadata). To facilitate future use, Rothenberg suggests attaching additional 'annotation metadata' to the surface of each encapsulation which would both "explain how to decode the obsolete records contained inside the encapsulation and to provide whatever contextual information is desired about these records" (Rothenberg 1996). This surface metadata, which could also contain resource discovery information, would be kept in a standard 'bootstrap' format so that it could be converted to new formats as part of the preservation refresh cycle.
The periodic migration of digital information from one generation of computer technology to a subsequent one is one of the solutions to the digital preservation problem proposed by Task Force on the Archiving of Digital Information (1996). With data migration, it is important to ensure that preserved documents are what the US National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) funded University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project describe (in an archives context) as 'inviolate', 'coherent' and 'auditable' (Duff 1996). David Bearman (1994, p. 302) says that if records are migrated to new software environments, "content, structure and context information must be linked to software functionality that preserves their executable connections" or that "representations of their relations must enable humans to reconstruct the relations that pertained in the original software environment". Successful migration strategies will, therefore, depend upon metadata being created to record the migration history of a digital object and to record contextual information so that a future user can reconstruct (or understand) the technological environment in which a particular digital object was created.
In addition to the technical problems of digital preservation, there will be a need to address problems of intellectual preservation (Graham 1994a; 1994b). For example, how will users know that the digital object that they retrieve is the one that they want? Again, how can one guard against unauthorised changes being made to the information content of digital objects?
A partial solution to this problem would be the general adoption of unique and persistent digital identifiers. This would mean the assignment of a new identifier each time a particular digital object is updated. Current initiatives include the Uniform Resource Name (URN) which is being developed for the Internet community by working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (Sollins and Masinter 1994) and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), an initiative of the Association of American Publishers (Bide 1998). Legacy identifiers will also continue to be used for some of the digital objects within the CEDARS project scope, so - for example - some publishers will assign International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) to CD-ROMs or generate Serial Item and Contribution Numbers (SICIs) for online journal articles. On the other hand, other items in the project scope, electronic ephemera for example, are unlikely to have previously assigned persistent and unique identifiers.
An additional approach to ensuring the authenticity of a given digital object would be to use a simple cryptographic technique like the production of a validation key value or checksum for each resource in a digital archive. An authentication checksum could be computed from each resource in a digital archive and stored with the descriptive metadata. When a user, or the archive, wants to retrieve the resource at a later date this checksum could be computed again and compared with the checksum recorded in the metadata. If the two agree there can be confidence that the document retrieved is the one referred to by the descriptive metadata.
Archivists and records managers have similar concerns with authenticity, integrity and preserving 'evidentiality'. The University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project, for example, has defined a metadata model for business-acceptable communications (Bearman and Sochats 1996). A University of British Columbia project has also worked on defining the requirements for preserving reliable and authentic electronic records (Duranti and MacNeil 1996b).
Digital resources that have been physically preserved will also need to be retrievable. For this reason, preservation systems will have to interact with resource discovery systems. Recommendations on resource discovery formats (e.g. Dublin Core) or metadata frameworks (e.g., Resource Description Format) will constitute an important part of CEDARS work on metadata.
Solving rights management problems in a digital preservation context will be crucial to a practically based project like CEDARS. Within the project, different licensing arrangements will have to be made with relevant stakeholders. This rights management information can be stored as part of the descriptive metadata and this could be used to manage access to digital resources in the demonstrators.
Not all digital resources will be preserved and, indeed, not all digital resources will be worthy of long-term preservation. CEDARS is interested in helping to develop suitable collection management policies for research libraries.
Another important issue is how this metadata will be generated and where it will be kept. Metadata could be stored either in a centralised or distributed database and linked to the original resource. Alternatively, metadata could also be embedded in or otherwise directly associated with the original resource. Different solutions might be possible for different types of metadata. Resource discovery and rights management metadata could form part of a searchable database, while metadata specifying the technical formats used, the migration strategies operated and a document's use history could be stored with the document itself. Over a long period of time, this metadata will grow in size and will itself have to be subject to migration and authentication strategies.
This section will describe a variety of projects and initiatives that have relevance to preservation metadata. The earliest projects described here originated in the archives and records management communities. The Universities of Pittsburgh and British Columbia have carried out important recent research projects in North America and these will be described in more detail in this section. Other initiatives in the archives and records field which will not be described here include the National Archives of Canada's IMOSA project (McDonald 1993; 1995a; 1995b) and relevant implementations in supranational organisations (e.g. Barry 1994) and the pharmaceutical industry (Anderson 1997a; 1997b; Lord 1997; Binns, et al. 1997; Murdock 1997).
Other initiatives described here have originated in the library community, Dublin Core (from OCLC), the Australian PANDORA project and the RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata. The remainder have a largely technical basis and emanate from the CCSDS, the USAF and the audio-visual community.
Brief description
The Digital Rosetta Stone (DRS) is a model for maintaining long-term access to digital documents by means of knowledge preservation in "metaknowledge archives". The model was developed by Steven B. Robertson of the United States Air Force (USAF) in a MSc thesis written at the Air Force Institute of Technology (Robertson 1996) and a paper co-written with his AFIT supervisor (Heminger and Robertson 1998).
The basis of the DRS is that current suggested strategies for the preservation of digital information, including migration and emulation, are not entirely satisfactory. Noting that the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 provided a key to the decipherment of ancient Egyptian texts, Heminger and Robertson propose the creation of something similar to permit the recapture of digital information. Robertson (1996, p. 21) says:
To prevent the loss of our digital history, I propose that digital knowledge be preserved in a manner that I call the Digital Rosetta Stone (DRS). The data so preserved would be a collection of the knowledge and processes necessary to recover and reconstruct digital documents maintained in their original file formats. The data would be used to create or emulate the hardware and software necessary to recover data from obsolete storage media and reconstruct the digital documents.
The DRS would be composed of three processes:
The knowledge preservation is defined by Robertson (1996, p. 23) as "the process of gathering and preserving the vast amounts of knowledge needed to recover digital data from a superseded media and to reconstruct digital documents from their original formats". In the DRS this knowledge would be stored in a 'metaknowledge archive' (MKA). The MKA would contain (and preserve) knowledge in the areas of media storage techniques and file formats. Knowledge about media storage techniques would include the techniques in which bit patterns are stored and accessed on media so that information could be migrated to a new storage device. Information on file formats would include the techniques used by software applications to define formatting operations within digital documents (Robertson 1996, p. 25). Data recovery would include migration to a new media and the retrieval of a document using the media storage techniques information stored in the MKA. The final process, document reconstruction, would use the file formatting information stored in the MKA to reconstruct (where possible) something close to the original form of a document.
Documentation
The most comprehensive documentation for the DRS is Robertson's MSc thesis (Robertson 1996), which is available on the Web as a PDF file. A paper by Heminger and Robertson (1998) is a shorter description of the DRS and MKA and has been delivered at conferences in Hawaii (HICSS-31) and Tomar (DELOS6).
Metadata issues
Robertson (1996, pp. 27-33) suggests that a MKA should contain standardised templates which can preserve the relevant information (metadata). This would include:
Importance for CEDARS
The DRS conceptual model contains much which could be of interest to CEDARS. The collection and preservation of technical information on media storage techniques and file formats could be important. However, the DRS model does not specify in detail the metadata template that should be used in a MKA. Additionally, Robertson (1996, pp. 54-55) concludes that the development of a DRS would be a time-consuming and expensive task ... "very costly in terms of money, manpower, and other resources". He also suggests the creation of a governmental organisation, a Digital Rosetta Stone Office (DRSO) to maintain the MKA. It is far from clear that this is a sustainable economic model.
On the other hand, the MKA is an interesting concept because it amplifies and extends ideas inherent in the influential Scientific American article by Jeff Rothenberg (1995). It provides a model for the preservation of contextual information that might permit the reconstruction of digital information by means of digital rescue archaeology. The concept of a digital Rosetta Stone has also been proposed by the Universal Preservation Format initiative.
Brief description
The Dublin Core is a 15-element metadata element set intended to facilitate the discovery of electronic resources. The format has been developed through a series of international workshops attended by librarians, computer specialists and other interested parties. The result is a fifteen-element core metadata set which can be used for resource discovery and for semantic interoperability between other metadata formats.
Documentation
Information on the history and development of Dublin Core can be found on the DC Web page based at OCLC:
Dublin Core Metadata. 1997. <URL:http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core/>
All DC workshop reports are available on the Web (Weibel 1995; Weibel et al. 1995; Dempsey and Weibel 1996; Weibel, Iannella and Cathro 1997; Weibel and Hakala 1998). Recent descriptions of the initiative have also been published by Stu Weibel (1997; Weibel and Lagoze 1997) and Juha Hakala (1997).
Metadata issues
The simple 15 element metadata set is as follows:
Importance for CEDARS
DC is an important international initiative. The Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata, for example, provided an implementation of their own metadata scheme in DC. It might be sensible for CEDARS metadata to contain this core metadata in any case for resource discovery, although elements like "Resource Type", "Format" and "Rights Management" have direct relevance to preservation metadata.
Brief description
Preserving and Accessing Networked DOcumentary Resources of Australia (PANDORA) is an operational 'proof-of-concept' digital archive based at the National Library of Australia (NLA) dedicated to the preservation of and long-term access to networked publications in Australia. It was established in 1996 with the following objectives (Cameron 1998):
PANDORA developed a 'Logical Data Model' based on its own experiences and with reference to the work of the Task Force on the Archiving of Digital Information (1996) and OAIS.
Documentation
The PANDORA Web pages can be found at:
Cameron, S., 1998, PANDORA: Preserving and Accessing Networked DOcumentary Resources of Australia. Canberra: National Library of Australia. <URL:http://www.nla.gov.au/pandora/>
The detailed 'Logical Data Model' is also available on the Web, at:
National Library of Australia, 1997, PANDORA Logical Data Model, Version 2, 10 November 1997. <URL:http://www.nla.gov.au/pandora/ldmv2.html>
Metadata issues
Descriptive metadata for each object are stored in the NLA's library management system. Items in PANDORA are identified by means of a Persistent Uniform Resource Identifier (PURL). The PANDORA Logical Data Model description (NLA 1997) contains an entity-relationship diagram that identifies the logical entities that need to be supported. These include the following:
|
Identification |
Descriptive Attribute |
|
Descriptive Attribute Type |
|
|
Publication |
|
|
Selection and negotiation |
Decision Rule |
|
Event Type |
|
|
Negotiation Status |
|
|
Organisation |
|
|
Selection Status |
|
|
Capture |
Capture Procedure |
|
Capture Procedure Type |
|
|
Gathering Frequency |
|
|
Gathering Regime |
|
|
Source URL |
|
|
Preservation |
Browser Type |
|
Copy |
|
|
Copy of Issue |
|
|
File |
|
|
File Type |
|
|
Format |
|
|
Format Type |
|
|
Issue |
|
|
Process |
|
|
Process Type |
|
|
Publisher Preferred Browser |
|
|
Rights Management and Access Control |
Access Profile |
|
Access Right |
|
|
NLA Copyright Warning |
|
|
Publisher Copyright Statement |
|
|
User Class |
Each of these entities has additional metadata. So, for example, the "Copy" entity might consist of a Publication Identifier, a Copy Identifier and Date Captured/Acquired. The "Descriptive Attribute Type" might contain the following metadata:
The PANDORA entities (metadata) are fully described in the PANDORA Logical Data Model document (NLA 1997).
Importance for CEDARS
The PANDORA Logical Data Model is interesting for CEDARS in that it permits the use of metadata to record and manage a variety for a variety of functions: Identification, Selection, Capture, Preservation and Rights Management.
Brief description
The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is working to develop standards for the long-term preservation of digital information obtained from observations of the terrestrial and space environments and which could also apply to other long-term digital archives. ISO aims to provide a framework and common terminology that may be used by Government and commercial sectors in the request and provision of digital archive services.
Documentation
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, 1998, Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS), ed. L. Reich and D. Sawyer. CCSDS 650.0-W-3.0, White Book, 15 April. <URL:ftp://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/sfdu/isoas/us12/CCSDS-650.0-W-3.pdf>
NASA/Science Office of Standards and Technology (NOST), ISO Archiving Standards - Overview. <URL:http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/isoas/>
Digital Archive Directions Workshop, 1998, Important Concepts from the draft ISO standard "Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)". Summary for: Digital Archive Directions (DADs) Workshop, National Archives and Records Administration, Archives II, College Park, Md., 22-26 June. <URL:http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/isoas/dads/OAISOverview.html>
Metadata issues
OAIS has a Taxonomy of Archival information object classes that includes
Importance for CEDARS
The OAIS Taxonomy is definitely of interest for CEDARS.
Brief description
The Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping project (the Pittsburgh Project) was funded by the US National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) and carried out at the School of Information Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, co-directed by James Williams and Richard J. Cox. David Bearman of Archives and Museum Informatics, an influential writer on archival issues (e.g. Pederson 1995; Cook 1997), was consultant to the project. Adrian Cunningham (1996, p. 319) has commented that the Pittsburgh Project "produced an alternative model [to the one embodied in the UBC Project] which is based upon a redefinition of archival thinking". This redefinition was informed by the work of archivists in North America and Australia and by the ongoing litigation over the preservation of US Government's e-mail known as the PROFS case (Bearman 1993; Wallace 1998).
The core aim of the project was to "develop viable recordkeeping functional requirements through an analysis of the professional literature and via consultation with experts in the management of archives and records" (Cox 1997). What emerged was the idea of an electronic recordkeeping system that could support the capture, maintenance and continued usability of records. In addition to producing the functional requirements for such a system, the Pittsburgh Project also investigated the concept of literary warrant, [...] "records are created because of legal, regulatory, professional best practices, and other reasons generally external to the organisation" (Cox 1997).
Documentation
The project Web page is based at the University of Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Sciences, Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping. <URL:http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/>
The pages include the project proposal, progress reports and a Framework for Business Acceptable Communications. It also includes Kimberly Barata's annotated bibliography:
Barata, K., 1996, Bibliography on Electronic Records. <URL:http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/bibtc.html>
Other project descriptions include ones published by David Bearman and Wendy Duff (1996) and Richard Cox (1997). Bearman has additionally published some important papers on managing electronic records in contemporary organisations (Bearman 1994) and on future directions for archives (Bearman 1989; 1995).
Metadata issues
Metadata issues issuing from the Pittsburgh Project have been outlined by David Wallace (1993; 1995) and Wendy Duff (1995). The functional requirements for recordkeeping are available on the Web <URL:http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/prog1.html> and in an appendix of Electronic evidence (Bearman 1994, pp. 294-304):
| Organisation |
1. Compliant |
Recordkeeping Systems |
2. Accountable |
|
3. Implemented |
|
|
4. Reliable |
|
Records - Captured |
5. Comprehensive |
|
6. Identifiable |
|
|
7. Complete |
|
|
7a. Accurate |
|
|
7b. Understandable |
|
|
7c. Meaningful |
|
|
8. Authentic |
|
Records- Maintained |
9. Preserved |
|
9a. Inviolate |
|
|
9b. Coherent |
|
|
9c. Audible |
|
|
10. Removable |
|
Records - Usable |
11. Exportable |
|
12. Accessible |
|
|
12a. Available |
|
|
12b. Renderable |
|
|
12c. Evidential |
|
|
13. Redactable |
The metadata specification (Bearman and Sochats 1996) is based on these functional requirements and consists of:
|
I |
HANDLE LAYER |
|
I.A. |
Record Identification Metadata |
|
I.A.1. |
Record-Declaration |
|
I.A.2. |
Transaction-Domain-Identifier |
|
I.A.3. |
Transaction-Instance-Identifier |
|
I.B |
Information Discovery Content Metadata |
|
I.B.1. |
Content-Description-Standard |
|
I.B.2. |
Content-Descriptor |
|
I.B.3. |
Record-Natural-Language |
|
II. |
TERMS & CONDITIONS LAYER |
|
II.A. |
Restrictions Status Metadata |
|
II.A.1. |
Access-Rights-Status |
|
II.A.2. |
Use-Rights-Status |
|
II.B. |
Access Conditions Metadata |
|
II.B.1. |
Access-Conditions-Resolver |
|
II.B.2. |
Resolver-Terms |
|
II.C. |
Use Conditions Metadata |
|
II.C.1. |
Use-Conditions-Resolver |
|
II.C.2. |
Use-Terms |
|
II.C.2.a. |
Use-Citation |
|
II.C.2.b. |
Redacted-Record-Rule |
|
II.C.2.c. |
License-Terms |
|
II.D. |
Disposition Requirements Metadata |
|
II.D.1. |
Removal-Authority |
|
II.D.2. |
Retention-Policy-Citation |
|
II.D.3. |
Retention- Authority Issuance |
|
II.D.4. |
Retention-External-Authority |
|
II.D.5. |
Retention-Period-End-Time |
|
II.D.6. |
Disposition-Instruction-Code |
|
III |
STRUCTURAL LAYER |
|
III.A. |
File Identification Metadata |
|
III.A.1. |
File-ID |
|
III.B. |
File Encoding Metadata |
|
III.B.1. |
File-Modality |
|
III.B.2. |
File-Data-Representation |
|
III.B.3. |
Data-Codes |
|
III.B.4. |
Compression-Method |
|
III.B.5. |
Encryption-Method |
|
III.C. |
File Rendering Metadata |
|
III.C.1. |
Application-Dependency |
|
III.C.2. |
Software-Environment-Dependency |
|
III.C.3. |
Hardware-Dependency |
|
III.C.4. |
Rendering-Rules |
|
III.C.5. |
Representation-Standard/De Facto Standard |
|
III.D. |
Record Rendering Metadata |
|
III.D.1. |
File-Linking-Rule/Standard |
|
III.D.2. |
File-Interchange-Standard: Version |
|
III.E. |
Content Structure Metadata |
|
III.E.1. |
Content-Structure |
|
III.E.2. |
Content-Data Set |
|
III.E.3. |
Application-Dictionary |
|
III.E.4. |
Delimiters/Labels |
|
III.E.5. |
Data Value-Lookup Tables |
|
III.E.6. |
Data View-at Creation |
|
III.E.7. |
Version-Relationships |
|
III.E.8. |
Set-Relationships |
|
III.E.9. |
Dynamic-Relationships |
|
III.F. |
Source Metadata |
|
III.F.1. |
Data-Source |
|
III.F.2. |
Data-Source-System-Documentation |
|
III.F.3. |
Data Capture-Instrument-Type |
|
III.F.4. |
Data Capture-Instrument-Settings |
|
III.F.5. |
Source Data-Quality |
|
IV. |
CONTEXTUAL LAYER |
|
IV.A.6. |
Linked-Prior Transaction |
|
IV.A.7. |
Action-Requested |
|
IV.A.8. |
Recipient Specific-Configuration Data |
|
IV.B. |
Responsibility Metadata |
|
IV.B.1. |
Originating-Organization |
|
IV.B.2. |
Authorization |
|
IV.C. |
System Accountability Metadata |
|
IV.C.1. |
System Audit-Responsible |
|
IV.C.2. |
System Audit-Implemented |
|
IV.C.3. |
System Audit-Consistent |
|
V. |
CONTENT LAYER |
|
V.A. |
Content |
|
V.A.1. |
Content-Created |
|
V.A.2. |
Content-Incorporated |
|
VI. |
USE HISTORY LAYER |
|
VI.A. |
Use History Metadata |
|
VI.A.1. |
Use-Type |
|
VI.A.3. |
Use-Instance-Time |
|
VI.A.4. |
Use-Instance-User |
|
VI.A.5. |
Use-Evidential Consequences |
This metadata specification has been mapped to ISAD(G) (Bearman and Duff 1996) and DC (Bearman 1997 [?]).
Importance for CEDARS
Although designed for archives and to preserve the "evidentiality" of records, the Pittsburgh metadata specification is an important piece of work that has relevance to work being carried out in CEDARS.
Brief description
The RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata was constituted in May 1997 and charged with identifying the kinds of information (metadata) required by the preservation community to manage a digital master file over time. Its precise objectives (RLG PRESERV 1997) were to:
The Working Group produced a report (Preliminary: January 1998, Final: May 1998) outlining suitable metadata elements for digital image files (RLG Working Group 1998). The WG noted that other information, like copyright and use-restriction data, is important and could be recorded at the same time as a digital master is being created.
Documentation
The RLG Working Group report is available on the Web at:
RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata, 1998, Final report. Mountain View, Calif.: Research Libraries Group, May. <URL:http://www.rlg.org/preserv/presmeta.html>
The Working Group's charge can be found at:
RLG PRESERV, 1997, RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata. 12 February. <URL:http://www.rlg.org/preserv/metadata.html>
Metadata issues
RLG working group deemed the following 16 metadata elements crucial to the continued viability of a digital image master:
The report also published implementations in DC, USMARC and XML. For example, the Dublin Core implementation looks like this:
DC.Title: [Title of digitized item]
DC.Creator.PersonalName: [Author or creator of intellectual content]
DC.Creator.Role: Author
DC.Contributor.CorporateName: [Agency responsible for transcribing metadata]
DC.Creator.Role: Transcriber (Metadata)
DC.Contributor.CorporateName: [Agency to which digitization was outsourced]
DC.Contributor.Role: [Producer]
DC.Contributor.CorporateName.Address: [Address of outsourcing agency]
DC.Publisher: [Institution responsible for digitization]
DC.Date: [date digital preservation copy created--YYYY-DD-MM]
DC.Form: Image
RLG.Form.Capture: [Make and model of scanner or digital camera and relevant capture details]
RLG.Form.Validation: [Validation Key, Watermark]
RLG.Form.Encryption: [Encryption technique]
RLG.Form.Compression.Method [e.g., JPEG, LZW]
RLG.Form.Compression.Level [value including capture device information that makes this information meaningful]
RLG.Form.Color: [The color palette with which the associated image or information is rendered]
RLG.Form.ColorManagement: [Associated color management systems]
RLG.Form.Resolution: [e.g., pixel dimensions, dpi, ppi, mtf]
RLG.Form.Modification: [Change History]
DC.Description: [Color Bar/Gray Scale Bar; Control targets]
DC.Identifier: [URL of document if metadata not carried in header]
DC.Source.Date: [Date of print version that is digitally reproduced]
DC.Source.Publisher: [publisher of print version that is digitally reproduced]
RLG.Source.Condition: [Physical condition of source item, etc.]
NOTE: Alternatively, instead of source use RELATION element to identify print version:
DC.Relation
DC.Relation.Type: IsVersionOf
DC.Relation.Identifier: [e.g., catalog record no. for original]
Importance for CEDARS
The report of the RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata is an important document for CEDARS and for other projects. It is one of very few initiatives that has attempted to identify the actual metadata elements required for preservation. Its main drawback is that the sixteen metadata elements relate primarily to digital images. CEDARS could attempt to use the RLG elements as a basis for recording metadata about digital image files and consider supplementing the RLG list with elements relevant for other formats.
Brief description
The EBU-SMPTE Task Force was set up in 1996 and was born out of a realisation that the coming explosion in the use of digital production technology in television could bring with it interoperability problems (Bradshaw 1998). The Task Force's objective is the establishment of efficient and interoperable methods of exchanging television programme materials between systems.
The Task Force recognised that a core enabling-infrastructure is needed to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of televisual material. It proposed the development of systems based on automatic, machine-generated, metadata supplemented by additional Knowing that there is unlikely to be any 'standard' metadata implementation, the Task Force suggested defining metadata exchange between systems.
Documentation
The EBU-SMPTE Task Force Web page is at:
European Broadcasting Union, 1998, Joint EBU SMPTE Task Force: Harmonised Standards for the Exchange of Television Programme Material as Bit Streams. <URL:http://www.ebu.ch/pmc_es_tf.html>
A 'Request for Technology' (RFT) with regard to metadata and file wrappers is available at:
Task Force for Harmonised Standards for the Exchange of Television Programme Material as Bit Streams, 1997, Request for technology: "Metadata and file Wrappers", "Networking and protocols for audio, video and metadata transfers. European Broadcasting Union / Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. <URL:http://www.ebu.ch/pmc_estf_rft.pdf>
Metadata issues
The Joint Task Force have defined a Metadata Dictionary Core Structure which looks like this (Bradshaw 1998):
0.0 Data Transport Metadata + Dictionary ID (Wrapper)
1.0 Essential Metadata - "metadata items necessary to identify, open and define the elements to follow"
2.0 Access - to control access
3.0 Parametrics - camera parametric data
4.0 Heritage - how the video was composed
5.0 Temporal - dates, time-codes, etc.
6.0 Geospatial
7.0 Descriptive - language descriptions of content
8.0 Other Registered Elements
9.0 Other User Defined Elements
Unique identifiers would appear in Class 1 (Essential Metadata) and would be an important key to the EBU-SMPTE Metadata Dictionary.
Importance for CEDARS
No direct importance to CEDARS (yet). EBU-SMPTE Metadata is currently less concerned with preservation than making archive video available for commercial motives in the new digital TV environment. Standards developed here may, however, impact on other areas of digital technology storage and re-use.
Brief description
An investigation of the Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records was a three-year project (1994-1997) funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) and carried out by the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies (SLAIS) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver. It is usually referred to as the "UBC Project". Its aim was to "identify and define the requirements for creating, handling and preserving reliable and authentic electronic records". Project objectives included:
The methodological approach of the UBC project was to determine whether presuppositions about the nature of 'records' originating in the disciplines of diplomatics and archival science were relevant and useful in the new electronic environment. Diplomatics is a body of concepts and methods, dating from the seventeenth century, which help prove the reliability and authenticity of documents (Duranti and MacNeil 1996b, p. 47). The UBC project was, therefore, largely concerned with the concepts of 'reliability' and 'authenticity' in an archival context (Duranti 1995):
Reliability is, therefore, something exclusively linked to record creation while authenticity, according to Duranti and MacNeil (1996b, p. 56), is linked to "the record's mode, form, and state of transmission, and to the manner of its preservation and custody, and [ensures that it] is protected and guaranteed through the adoption of methods that ensure that the record is not manipulated, altered, or otherwise falsified after its creation ...". The UBC Project investigators believe that archival custody is important to ensure authenticity once records have become inactive. Duranti (1996), in particular, has criticised David Bearman's 'non-custodial' approach to archives (e.g. Bearman 1991) and the concept of 'distributed custody' developed by Australian Archives (e.g. Upward and McKemmish 1994). She points out that "the authenticity of inactive records traditionally has been protected by physically transferring them to an archival institution or programme and, once transferred, by arranging and describing them" (Duranti 1997, p. 61). The replacement of archival description by the automated capture of contextual metadata (as proposed by the Pittsburgh Project) is accordingly rejected (MacNeil 1995). Duranti maintains that metadata are inadequate "because metadata do not contain 'historical' context, but only the contextual data contemporary to records creation, and because they only record the limited contextual fabric that a document has within the electronic system in which it exists" (Duranti 1996, p. 252).
Documentation
The project is briefly described on the project home page:
Duranti, L, Eastwood, T. and MacNeil, H., 1997, The Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia, School of Library, Archival and Information Studies. <URL:http://www.slais.ubc.ca/users/duranti/>
In addition, there are a number of progress reports (Duranti and Eastwood 1995; Duranti, MacNeil and Underwood 1996; Duranti and MacNeil 1996a; MacNeil 1997) and a published project overview written by Luciana Duranti and Heather MacNeil (1996b).
Metadata issues
The UBC Project is interesting because it rejects the Pittsburgh Project's emphasis on the development of functional specifications for record-keeping systems with record evidentiality preserved by means of metadata. It makes a strong case for the physical custody by archival institutions of electronic records and notes the importance of archival description in this context.
In addition, the UBC investigators developed a set of eight templates that identify the necessary and sufficient components of records in both traditional and electronic recordkeeping environments (Duranti and MacNeil 1996b). These templates (available on the UBC Project home page) define the necessary and sufficient components of:
Some of the attributes in the resulting 'document profile' could be considered to comprise metadata. These attributes include:
Importance for CEDARS
As a project primarily concerned with archives, the UBC Project is not of direct relevance to CEDARS. However, its concern with authenticity and archives as the upholders of this authenticity might have relevance to any concerns CEDARS may have with intellectual preservation, i.e. to what extent can data creators or publishers be trusted not to delete or change digital objects under their control. This raises all sorts of other issues about the custodial role of digital archives, including CEDARS.
Brief description
The Universal Preservation Format (UPF) is a WGBH Foundation sponsored initiative, part-funded by a NHPRC grant, to advocate a platform-independent format which will help make accessible a wide variety of data types. A UPF will be particularly important for audio-visual data (e.g. video-archives) where there exist very large collections of material, e.g. material on deteriorating analogue tapes, which can be preferably transferred to a single format. Thom Shepard (1997) comments that the initiative's central goal is to "work with representatives from standards organisations, hardware and software companies, museums, academic institutions, archives and library science communities to produce and publish a Recommended Practices document". The initiative is connected with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) who have assigned an official Study Group for it (Shepard 1997).
A UPF would include a wrapper (or container) with a framework structure (on the Warwick Framework (e.g. Dempsey and Weibel 1996; Weibel and Lagoze 1997) model) which would be used for storing both digital content and metadata.
Documentation
Information on the UPF can be found on the UPF Web page. This gives access to a varierty of Web-based documents on the proposed format including papers by Dave MacCarn (1997) and Shepard (1997):
Shepard, T., 1998, UPF Home. Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation. <URL:http://info.wgbh.org/upf/>
Metadata issues
The UPF initiative does not propose the adoption of any particular metadata. It proposes a model based on self-describing wrappers (containers) that contain both content and metadata which can explain what particular content is there and how to use it. Wrapper technologies investigated by MacCarn (1997) include Apple's Bento specification, Avid Technology's Open Media Framework (OMF) Interchange and the work of the European Broadcasting Union-SMPTE Task Force on creating an exchange format for video materials.
UPF has also noted the major importance of unique identifiers and expects to include such a system or systems in its Recommended Practice note.
Importance for CEDARS
It is too early to accurately assess UPF's importance for CEDARS's metadata work. Some of the concepts used in UPF, however, may be useful for other CEDARS Working Groups.
The projects, initiatives and formats reviewed in this report show that much work remains to be done. There is one set of metadata data elements (RLG Working Group) for digital images, and good detailed specifications for metadata from PANDORA and the Pittsburgh NHPRC project. These in particular need to be studied in more detail. The OAIS model is also useful. Other initiatives, especially the EBU-SMPTE Task Force, UPF and the UBC Project are not directly relevant to CEDARS concerns with regard to metadata, but are worth "keeping tabs" on.
A few preliminary recommendations:
The adoption of persistent and unique identifiers is vital, both in the CEDARS project and outside.
Many of these initiatives mention "wrappers", "containers" and "frameworks". Some thought should be given to how metadata should be integrated with data content in CEDARS.
Authenticity (or intellectual preservation) is going to be important. It will be interesting to investigate whether some archivists' concerns with custody or "distributed custody" will have relevance to CEDARS.
Anderson, U., 1997a, Short version of the Sesam report: philosophy and rules concerning electronic archives and authenticity. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, Brussels, 18-20 December 1996. INSAR: European Archives News, Supplement II. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 175-189.
Anderson, U., 1997b, Identification and control of business records and metadata at information and process modelling. Draft, 16 May. [Södertälje]: Astra AB.
Barry, R., 1994, Electronic document and records management systems: towards a methodology for requirements definition. Information Management & Technology, no. 27, no. 6, November, pp. 251-256.
Beagrie, N. and Greenstein, D., 1998, A strategic policy framework for creating and preserving digital collections: a report to the Digital Archiving Working Group. British Library Research and Innovation report, 107 London: British Library Research and Innovation Centre, July. <URL:http://ahds.ac.uk/manage/framework.htm>
Bearman, D., 1989, Archival methods. Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report, vol. 3, no. 1. Pittsburgh. Pa.: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Bearman, D., 1991, An indefensible bastion: archives as repositories in the electronic age. In: Archival management of electronic records, ed. David Bearman. Archives and Informatics Technical Report, no. 13. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Archives and Museum Informatics, 1991, pp. 14-24
Bearman, D., 1993, The implications of Armstrong v. Executive [Office] of the President for the archival management of electronic records. American Archivist, vol. 56, pp. 674-689.
Bearman, D., 1994, Electronic evidence: strategies for managing records in contemporary organizations. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Bearman, D., 1995, Archival strategies. American Archivist, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 380-413.
Bearman, D., 1997, Research issues in metadata. Working Meeting on Electronic Records Research, Pittsburgh, Pa., 28-30 May. <URL:http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~cerar/s4-db.htm>
Bearman, D. and Duff, W., 1996, Grounding archival description in the functional requirements for evidence. Archivaria, no. 41, pp. 275-281.
Bearman, D. and Hedstrom, M., 1993, Reinventing archives for electronic records: alternative service delivery options. In: Electronic records management program strategies, ed. M. Hedstrom. Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report, 18. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Archives and Museum Informatics, pp. 82-98.
Bearman, D. and Sochats, K., 1996, Metadata requirements for evidence. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Science. <URL:http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/BACartic.html>
Bearman, D. and Trant, J., 1997, Electronic Records Research Working Meeting, May 28-30, 1997: a report from the archives community. D-Lib Magazine, July/August 1997. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july97/07bearman.html>
Bennett, J.C., 1997, A framework of data types and formats, and issues affecting the long-term preservation of digital material. British Library Research and Innovation Report, 50. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/bl/jisc-npo50/bennet.html>
Bide, M., 1998, In search of the Unicorn: the Digital Object Identifier from a user perspective, rev. ed. BNBRF Report, 89. London: Book Industry Communication. <URL:http://www.bic.org.uk/bic/unicorn2.pdf>
Binns, S., Bowen, D.V., Murdock, A., Samuel, J. and Parsons, T., 1997, Research issues in migration strategies within an electronic archive. Working Meeting on Electronic Records Research, Pittsburgh, Pa., 28-30 May. <URL:http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~cerar/s5-am.htm>
Bradshaw, D., 1998, EBU-SMPTE Task Force on Metadata. Digital workflow through production and documentation: a seminar organised by the Documentation Commission of FIAT/IFTA, BBC Conference Centre, London, 7-8 May 1998.
Caplan, P., 1995, You call it corn, we call it syntax-independent metadata for document-like objects. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 19-23. <URL:http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v6/n4/capl6n4.html>
Coleman, J. and Willis, D., 1997, SGML as a framework for digital preservation and access. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Preservation and Access.
Cook, T., 1997, The impact of David Bearman on modern archival thinking: an essay of personal reflection and critique. Archives and Museum Informatics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 15-37.
Cox, R.J., 1993, Readings in archives and electronic records: annotated bibliography and analysis of the literature. In: Electronic records management program strategies, ed. M. Hedstrom. Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report, 18. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Archives and Museum Informatics, pp. 97-152.
Cox, R.J., 1997, More than diplomatic: functional requirements for evidence in recordkeeping. Records Management Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 21-30.
Cunningham, A., 1996, Journey to the end of the night: custody and the dawning of a new era on the archival threshold. Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 312-321.
Day, M.W., 1997, Extending metadata for digital preservation. Ariadne (Web version), No. 19, May. <URL:http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue9/metadata/>
Day, M.W., 1998a, Online serials: preservation issues. In: E-serials: publishers, libraries, users and standards, ed. W. Jones. (Also published in: Serials Librarian, Vol. 33). Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth Press, pp. 199-221.
Day, M.W., 1998b, CEDARS: digital preservation and metadata. 6th DELOS Workshop: Preservation of Digital Information, Tomar, Portugal, 17-19 June. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/presentations/delos6/cedars.html>
Dempsey, L., 1996, ROADS to Desire: some UK and other European metadata and resource discovery projects. D-Lib Magazine, July/August. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july96/07dempsey.html>
Dempsey, L. and Heery, R., 1998, Metadata: a current view of practice and issues. Journal of Documentation, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 145-172.
Dempsey, L. Heery, R., Hamilton, M., Hiom, D., Knight, J., Koch, T., Peereboom, M. and Powell, A., 1997, Specification for resource description methods: Part 1. A review of metadata: a survey of current resource description formats. DESIRE Deliverable 3.2 (1). Bath: UKOLN, March. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/desire/overview/>
Dempsey, L., Russell, R. and Heery, R., 1997, In at the shallow end: metadata and cross-domain resource discovery. In: Discovering online resources across the humanities: a practical implementation of the Dublin Core, ed. P. Miller and D. Greenstein. Bath: UKOLN on behalf of the Arts and Humanities Data Service, pp. 63-71. <URL:http://ahds.ac.uk/public/metadata/disc_07.html>
Dempsey, L. and Weibel, S., 1996, The Warwick Metadata Workshop: a framework for the deployment of resource description. D-Lib Magazine, July/August. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july96/07weibel.html>
Dollar, C.M., 1992, Archival theory and information technologies: the impact of information technologies on archival principles and methods, ed. O. Bucci. Ancona: Publicarions of the University of Macerata.
Duff, W., 1995, Will metadata replace archival description? A commentary, Archivaria, no. 39, pp. 33-38.
Duff, W., 1996, Ensuring the preservation of reliable evidence: a research project funded by the NHPRC. Archivaria, no. 42, pp. 28-45.
Duranti, L., 1995, Reliability and authenticity: the concepts and their implications. Archivaria, no. 39, pp. 5-10.
Duranti, L., 1996, Archives as a place. Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 242-255.
Duranti, L., 1997, The preservation of the integrity of electronic records. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, Brussels, 18-20 December 1996. INSAR: European Archives News, Supplement II. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 60-65.
Duranti, L. and Eastwood, T., 1995, Protecting electronic evidence: a progress report on a research study and its methodology. Archivi & Computer, anno V, fasc. 3, pp. 213-250.
Duranti, L. and MacNeil, H., 1996a, Protecting electronic evidence: a third progress report on a research study and its methodology. Archivi & Computer, anno VI, fasc. 5, pp. 343-404.
Duranti, L. and MacNeil, H., 1996b, The protection of the integrity of electronic records: an overview of the UBC-MAS Research Project. Archivaria, no. 42, pp. 46-67.
Duranti, L., MacNeil, H. and Underwood, W.E., 1996, Protecting electronic evidence: a second progress report on a research study and its methodology." Archivi & Computer, anno VI, fasc. 1, pp. 37-70.
Fresco, M., 1996, Long term preservation of electronic materials: a JISC/British Library Workshop as part of the Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) organised by UKOLN, 27th and 28th November 1995 at the University of Warwick. British Library Research and Development Report, 6238. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/bl/rdr6238/>
Graham, P.S., 1994a, Intellectual preservation: electronic preservation of the third kind. Washington D.C.: Commission on Preservation and Access. <URL:http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/graham/intpres.html>
Graham, P.S., 1994b, Long-term intellectual preservation. In: Digital imaging technology for preservation, ed. N.E. Elkington, Mountain View, Calif.: Research Libraries Group, pp. 41-57.
Greenstein, D. and Murray, R., 1997, Metadata and middleware: a systems architecture for cross-domain discovery. In: Discovering online resources across the humanities: a practical implementation of the Dublin Core, ed. P. Miller and D. Greenstein. Bath: UKOLN on behalf of the Arts and Humanities Data Service, pp. 56-62. <URL:http://ahds.ac.uk/public/metadata/disc_06.html>
Hakala, J., 1997, Dublin Core in 1997: a report from Dublin Core metadata workshops 4 & 5. Nordinfo-Nytt, vol. 20, no. 3-4, pp. 10-22.
Hedstrom, M., 1991, Understanding electronic incunabula: a framework for research on electronic records. American Archivist, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 334-354.
Hedstrom, M., 1993, Descriptive practices for electronic records: deciding what is essential and imagining what is possible. Archivaria, no. 36, pp. 53-63.
Hedstrom, M., 1995a, Electronic archives: integrity and access in the network environment. In: Networking in the humanities: proceedings of the Second Conference on Scholarship and Technology in the Humanities held at Elvetham Hall, Hampshire, UK, 13-16 April, 1994, ed. S. Kenna and S. Ross. London: Bowker-Saur, pp. 77-95.
Hedstrom, M., 1995b, Preserving the intellectual record: a view from the archives. In: Networking and the Future of Libraries 2: managing the intellectual record, ed. L. Dempsey, D. Law and I. Mowat. London: Library Association Publishing, pp. 179-191.
Hedstrom, M., 1997, Research issues in migration and long-term preservation. Working Meeting on Electronic Records Research, Pittsburgh, Pa., 28-30 May. <URL:http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~cerar/s5-mh.html>
Heery, R., 1996, Review of metadata formats. Program, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 345-373. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/review.html>
Heery, R., Powell, A. and Day, M., 1997, Metadata. Library and Information Briefings, 75. London: South Bank University, Library Information Technology Centre.
Heminger, A.R. and Robertson, S.B.,1998, Digital Rosetta Stone: a conceptual model for maintaining long-term access to digital documents. 6th DELOS Workshop: Preservation of Digital Information, Tomar, Portugal, 17-19 June.
Hendley, T., 1998, Comparison of methods and costs of digital preservation, British Library Research and Innovation Report, 106.
Hoare, P., 1996, Legal deposit of non-print material: an international overview, September-October 1995. British Library Research and Development Report, 6245. London: British Library Research and Development Department.
Holdsworth, D., 1996, The medium is not the message, or, indefinitely long-term file storage at Leeds University. Proceedings of the 5th NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Conference on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies, University of Maryland, College Park, Md., 17-19 September. NASA Publication, 3340. <URL:http://esdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/msst/conf1996/A6_07Holdsworth.html>
Holdsworth, D., 1997, Towards a tera-byte: 25 years of file systems at Leeds University. Axis: the UCISA Journal of Academic Computing and Information Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 9-14.
Holdsworth, D., 1998, CEDARS: a multi-site UK project to create exemplars in digital archiving. Digital Archive Directions (DADs) Workshop, National Archives and Records Administration, Archives II, College Park, Md., 22-26 June. <URL:http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/isoas/dads/DADS1.html>
Horsman, P., 1997, A knowledge-based electronic-keeping system. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, Brussels, 18-20 December 1996. INSAR: European Archives News, Supplement II. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 54-59.
Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review Group, 1993, A report for the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department of Education Northern Ireland [the Follett Report]. Bristol: HEFCE, December. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/follett/report/>
Lesk, M., 1992, Preservation of new technology: a report of the Technology Assessment Advisory Committee of the Commission on Preservation and Access. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Preservation and Access. <URL:http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/lesk/lesk2.html>
Lord, P.W., 1997, Strategies and tactics for managing electronic data records: a view from the pharmaceutical industry. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, Brussels, 18-20 December 1996. INSAR: European Archives News, Supplement II. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 168-174.
Lynch, C., 1997, Searching the Internet. Scientific American, vol. 276, no. 3, March, pp. 44-48.
MacCarn, D., 1997, Toward a Universal Data Format for the preservation of media. SMPTE Journal, vol. 106 no. 7, July, p477-479. <URL:http://info.wgbh.org/upf/SMPTE_UPF_paper.html>
Mackenzie Owen, J. and van der Walle, J., 1996, Deposit collections of electronic publications. European Commission, DG XIII-E/4. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
McDonald, J., 1993, Managing information in an office systems environment: the IMOSA Project. In: Information handling in offices and archives, ed. A. Menne-Haritz. Munich: K.G. Saur, pp. 138-151.
McDonald, J., 1995, Managing information in an office systems environment: the IMOSA Project. American Archivist, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 142-153.
McDonald, J., 1995, Managing records in the modern office: taming the wild frontier. Archivaria, no. 39, pp. 70-79.
MacNeil, H., 1995, Metadata strategies and archival description: comparing apples to oranges. Archivaria, no. 39, pp. 11-21.
MacNeil, H., 1997,
Mallinson, J.C., 1988, On the preservation of human- and machine-readable records. Information Technology and Libraries, vol. 7, pp. 19-23.
Matthews, G., Poulter, A. and Blagg, E., 1997, Preservation of digital materials policy and strategy issues for the UK: report of a meeting held at the British Library Research and Innovation Centre, London, 13 December 1996. British Library Research and Innovation Report, 41. <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/bl/blri041/digpres.html>
Murdock, A., 1997, Roles and responsibilities in managing an electronic archive. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, Brussels, 18-20 December 1996. INSAR: European Archives News, Supplement II. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 118-122.
Pederson, A., 1995, Empowering archival effectiveness: Archival Strategies as innovation. American Archivist, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 430-453.
RLG PRESERV, 1997, RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata. 12 February. <URL:http://www.rlg.org/preserv/metadata.html>
RLG Working Group on Preservation Issues of Metadata, 1998, Final report. Mountain View, Calif.: Research Libraries Group, May. <URL:http://www.rlg.org/preserv/presmeta.html>
Robertson, S.B., 1996, Digital Rosetta Stone: a conceptual model for maintaining long-term access to digital documents. Thesis (MSc), Air Force Institute of Technology, Graduate School of Logistics and Acquisition Management. <URL:http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/research/ay1996/afit_la/rober_sb.htm>
Ross, S., 1993, Historians, machine-readable information and the past's future. In: Electronic information resources and historians: European perspectives, ed. S. Ross and E. Higgs. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag, pp. 1-20.
Ross, S., 1997, Consensus, communication and collaboration: fostering multidisciplinary co-operation in electronic records. In: Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, Brussels, 18-20 December 1996. INSAR: European Archives News, Supplement II. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 330-336.
Rothenberg, J., 1995, Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American, vol. 272, no. 1, January, pp. 24-29.
Rothenberg, J., 1996, Metadata to support data quality and longevity. Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Metadata Conference, NOAA Complex, Silver Spring, Md., 16-18 April. <URL:http://www.computer.org/conferen/meta96/rothenberg_paper/ieee.data-quality.html>
Shepard, T.M., 1997, Universal Preservation Format update. D-Lib Magazine, November. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november97/11clips.html>
Sollins, K. and Masinter, L., 1994, Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names. RFC 1737. <URL:http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1737.txt>
Task Force on the Archiving of Digital Information, 1996, Preserving digital information: report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information commissioned by the Commission on Preservation and Access and the Research Libraries Group. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Preservation and Access. <URL:http://www.rlg.org/ArchTF/>
Upward, F. and McKemmish, S., 1994, Somewhere beyond custody. Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 136-149.
Wallace, D., 1993, Metadata and the archival management of electronic records. Archivaria, no. 36, pp. 87-110.
Wallace, D., 1995, Managing the present: metadata as archival description. Archivaria, no. 39, pp. 11-21.
Wallace, D., 1998, Preserving the U.S. Government's White House electronic mail: archival challenges and policy implications. 6th DELOS Workshop: Preservation of Digital Information, Tomar, Portugal, 17-19 June.
Weibel, S., 1995, Metadata: the foundations of resource description'. D-Lib Magazine, July. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/July95/07weibel.html>
Weibel, S., 1997, The evolving metadata architecture for the World Wide Web: bringing together the semantics, structure and syntax of resource description. In: ISDL '97: proceedings of [the] International Symposium on Research, Development and Practice in Digital Libraries 1997, November 18-21, 1997, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. Tsukuba: University of Library and Information Science, pp. 16-22. <URL:http://www.DL.ulis.ac.jp/ISDL97/proceedings/weibe.html>
Weibel, S., Godby, J., Miller, E. and Daniel, R., 1995, OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop Report. <URL:http://www.oclc.org:5046/oclc/research/conferences/metadata/dublin_core_report.html>
Weibel, S., Iannella, R. and Cathro, W., 1997, The 4th Dublin Core Metadata Workshop report. D-Lib Magazine, June. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html>
Weibel, S. and Hakala, J., 1998, DC-5: The Helsinki Metadata Workshop: a report on the workshop and subsequent developments. D-Lib Magazine, February. <URL:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february98/02weibel.html>
Weibel, S.L. and Lagoze, C., 1997, An element set to support resource discovery: the state of the Dublin Core, January 1997. International Journal on Digital Libraries, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 176-186.
|
AHDS |
Arts and Humanities Data Service |
|
CCSDS |
Consultative Committee on Space Data Systems |
|
CD-ROM |
Compact Disc - Read Only Memory |
|
CEDARS |
CURL Exemplars in Digital ArchiveS |
|
CURL |
Consortium of University Research Libraries |
|
DADs |
Digital Archive Directions Workshop |
|
DC |
Dublin Core |
|
DOI |
Digital Object Identifier |
|
EBU |
European Broadcasting Union |
|
eLib |
Electronic Libraries Programme |
|
ICA |
International Council on Archives |
|
IEEE |
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
|
IETF |
Internet Engineering Task Force |
|
IMF |
International Monetary Fund |
|
IMOSA |
Information Management and Office Systems Advancement |
|
ISAD(G) |
General International Standard Archival Description |
|
ISBN |
International Standard Book Number |
|
ISO |
International Organisation for Standardisation |
|
JISC |
Joint Information Systems Committee |
|
NASA |
National Aeronautics and Space Agency |
|
NCSA |
National Center for Supercomputing Applications |
|
NHPRC |
National Historical Publications and Records Commission |
|
NLA |
National Library of Australia |
|
OAIS |
Open Archival Information System |
|
OCLC |
Online Computer Library Center |
|
PANDORA |
Preserving and Accessing Networked DOcumentary Resources of Australia |
|
RDF |
Resource Description Framework |
|
RFC |
Request for Comments |
|
RLG |
Research Libraries Group |
|
SGML |
Standard Generalised Markup Language |
|
SMPTE |
Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers |
|
SSHRCC |
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada |
|
UBC |
University of British Columbia |
|
UPF |
Universal Preservation Format |
|
URN |
Uniform Resource Name |
|
W3C |
World Wide Web Consortium |
|
XML |
Extensible Markup Language |
Section 2 of this report is based on a paper given at the Sixth DELOS Workshop: Preservation of Digital Information, Tomar, Portugal, 18 June 1998.
UKOLN is funded by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre, the Joint Information Services Committee of the UK Higher Education Funding councils, as well as by project funding from JISC's eLib Programme and the European Union. UKOLN also receives support from the University of Bath, where it is based.
|
Created and maintained by: Michael Day, Research Officer,
UKOLN: The UK Office for Library and Information Networking,
University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK. |  |